Re: [rohc] Sigcomp presence-specific dictionary
cco <cristian.constantin@iptel.org> Mon, 26 March 2007 10:03 UTC
Return-path: <rohc-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HVm35-0001jZ-Kb; Mon, 26 Mar 2007 06:03:35 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HVm34-0001io-Vt for rohc@ietf.org; Mon, 26 Mar 2007 06:03:34 -0400
Received: from smtp.iptel.org ([213.192.59.67] helo=mail.iptel.org) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HVm2z-0002Xr-LM for rohc@ietf.org; Mon, 26 Mar 2007 06:03:34 -0400
Received: from shell.iptel.org (shell.iptel.org [213.192.59.74]) by mail.iptel.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 6304B20A6C2; Mon, 26 Mar 2007 12:03:12 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by shell.iptel.org (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Mon, 26 Mar 2007 12:03:09 +0200
Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2007 12:03:09 +0200
From: cco <cristian.constantin@iptel.org>
To: Miguel Garcia <Miguel.An.Garcia@nokia.com>
Subject: Re: [rohc] Sigcomp presence-specific dictionary
Message-ID: <20070326100309.GB10477@shell>
References: <45ED1706.8090504@nokia.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <45ED1706.8090504@nokia.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: bb8f917bb6b8da28fc948aeffb74aa17
Cc: rohc@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: rohc@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Robust Header Compression <rohc.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rohc>, <mailto:rohc-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:rohc@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rohc-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rohc>, <mailto:rohc-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: rohc-bounces@ietf.org
On Tue, Mar 06, 2007 at 09:23:50AM +0200, Miguel Garcia wrote: > Hi. > > I have been working on a presence-specific static Sigcomp dictionary for > SIP presence. The draft is addressed to the SIMPLE WG, which is working > on SIP presence. But I want to make the ROHC WG aware of the draft and > solicit comments. > > Until the draft is officially available, you can download a copy from: > > http://people.nokia.net/~miguel/drafts/pre/draft-garcia-simple-presence-dictionary-02.txt > http://people.nokia.net/~miguel/drafts/pre/draft-garcia-simple-presence-dictionary-02.html cristian: hi! the section "1. Introduction" says at some point: "Sigcomp endpoints will announce the availability of one or both dictionaries during the Sigcomp initialization phase." what exactly do you mean by "Sigcomp initialization phase"? sigcomp is piggy-backed on SIP in this case and there is no explicit sigcomp "signalling". on the other hand rfc3485, "The Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) and Session Description Protocol (SDP) Static Dictionary for Signaling Compression (SigComp)", defining a similar dictionary (sigcomp "local" state) puts a requirement on the implementation of sigcomp stacks for sip: "The static dictionary is unique and MUST be available in all SigComp implementations for SIP/SDP." (and the need for such a requirement is also explained in the rfc.) why not having the same kind of req. in your draft? bye now! cristian _______________________________________________ Rohc mailing list Rohc@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rohc